ANY SIGN OF CHANGES FROM THE D.O.J.

daveob007

I have not been on here for a while due to internet issues,,just wondering if any proposals have been put forward to the justice department on making changes to the last botched legislation.
Or are there any whispers going around on the issues that have affected us all???
thanks

Sparks

Since April? None that I've heard of. The new Minister is still settling in, and the only answers I've heard of from the DoJ have been fairly non-committal. They've not been ICABS answers either, mind, which is a good thing.

newby.204

Sparks wrote: »

Since April? None that I've heard of. The new Minister is still settling in, and the only answers I've heard of from the DoJ have been fairly non-committal. They've not been ICABS answers either, mind, which is a good thing.

To be fair sparks thats not the most encouraging response and given the length of the response to what was a fairly lengthy letter in the first place leaves me both cynical and pessimistic at best

Sparks

Like I said, non-committal. It's a case of "we're not in the door long enough to change the letterhead, so we're not going to commit to legislative policy for a minority interest today, especially not one we're involved in test cases in the High Court with at the moment, thanks very much". But that's not the same as the "I was the president of ICABS and I hate guns so I'll be banning them next week you baby-animal-murdering sociopath" either, which is what a few people were worried we'd be getting.

I'm not panicing just yet. Non-committal answers this early mean he's not coming to the table with any specific firearms policy in mind, and there is some party support for us in there. I just think we're more likely to see small pragmatic steps than one big dramatic sexy step. Unfortunately, as a community, we have a history of not even trying the small steps - in fact, of decrying them using language normally reserved for the laziest writers on straight-to-video B-movies - and pushing for that one big step that'll fix everything (despite it not actually being possible to do under the Irish legislative process). Whether we choose idealism or pragmatism over the next few months is probably going to affect how these things go for the next two or three years at least.

newby.204

I suppose your right there sparks, all i want;) is at least a position on reloading, for the hunter as much as the target shooter really. Ideally after that i think licencing should be taken away from the gardai as its a joke tbh, and the return to pistol licencing after that would be a cherry on top but reloading would be a start.

Sparks

I'd say you're closer to a resolution than any of the rest of us so newby - the pilot project in the Midlands is a massive step forward for reloading. Barring anything untoward happening, I'd think it was the last step before the Explosives Act made reloading possible. Legislation's about as fast as a drugged snail, but you could still be looking at that being sorted by the start of next year.

As to taking away licencing from the Gardai, it's never going to happen. Total non-starter. Nobody outside of the shooting community would ever back that idea, and even having a civilan body in the loop was shot down as being unsupportable when the NASRPC asked for a veto on pistol licencing. And to be honest, having the Gardai make the decision isn't the real problem anyway -- the real problem are what the FPU themselves call "trouble superintendents", who make decisions based on a poor grasp of the technical facts on the firearms they're licencing or on a poor grasp of the actual Firearms Act. The better solution there isn't to take all licencing out of the Gardai's hands (because we'd spend every man-hour we have and more for years and get nowhere on that solution); it's to empower the FPU so that within the AGS, they can direct superintendents to say yay or nay on specific licences. That wasn't possible under the old laws, but since the DCs can now order a licence granted, the Supers no longer have their persona designata status, and can be ordered to grant or refuse a licence.

And pistols are still being licenced. Yes, air and smallbore only. But the important thing is that there exists in law an active mechanism for licencing pistols - increasing the scope of the pistols it can licence is legally trivial (it takes precisely one SI signed by the Minister to let all centerfire pistols be licenced once again. No Dail involvement needed at all).

newby.204

Sparks wrote: »

I'd say you're closer to a resolution than any of the rest of us so newby - the pilot project in the Midlands is a massive step forward for reloading. Barring anything untoward happening, I'd think it was the last step before the Explosives Act made reloading possible. Legislation's about as fast as a drugged snail, but you could still be looking at that being sorted by the start of next year.

As to taking away licencing from the Gardai, it's never going to happen. Total non-starter. Nobody outside of the shooting community would ever back that idea, and even having a civilan body in the loop was shot down as being unsupportable when the NASRPC asked for a veto on pistol licencing. And to be honest, having the Gardai make the decision isn't the real problem anyway -- the real problem are what the FPU themselves call "trouble superintendents", who make decisions based on a poor grasp of the technical facts on the firearms they're licencing or on a poor grasp of the actual Firearms Act. The better solution there isn't to take all licencing out of the Gardai's hands (because we'd spend every man-hour we have and more for years and get nowhere on that solution); it's to empower the FPU so that within the AGS, they can direct superintendents to say yay or nay on specific licences. That wasn't possible under the old laws, but since the DCs can now order a licence granted, the Supers no longer have their persona designata status, and can be ordered to grant or refuse a licence.

And pistols are still being licenced. Yes, air and smallbore only. But the important thing is that there exists in law an active mechanism for licencing pistols - increasing the scope of the pistols it can licence is legally trivial (it takes precisely one SI signed by the Minister to let all centerfire pistols be licenced once again. No Dail involvement needed at all).

Well hopefully ill have a very merry christmas this year then sparks, as for licencing you would think that having been overturned on many occasions the "trouble supers" would be issued a directive from the doj to stop wasting the courts and taxpayers money and time.

And thirdly as for the wider licencing of fullbore pistols, tbh I think we've come too far to go back and i don't realistically believe that ill ever be able to licence one but thats just my opinion.

Sparks

newby.204 wrote: »

you would think that having been overturned on many occasions the "trouble supers" would be issued a directive from the doj to stop wasting the courts and taxpayers money and time.

Well, first off, the DoJ issuing a directive to the supers (or for that matter to the AGS at any level) would have been met with a one-finger salute at best; the AGS is rather adamant that they don't answer to the Department, but to the Commissioner and he reports to the Minister.

And the Minister was never going to direct the AGS to stop opposing licences that the Minister had announced in the press that he was going to get rid of.

With a new Minister in place though, and massive economic pressure...

And thirdly as for the wider licencing of fullbore pistols, tbh I think we've come too far to go back and i don't realistically believe that ill ever be able to licence one but thats just my opinion.

One SI is all it would take to change the restricted list to take centerfire pistols off it (or even a subset of them). And the law, don't forget, doesn't ban the licencing of centerfire pistols; only the licencing of restricted short firearms not owned prior to Nov.2008. If centerfire pistols are no longer restricted, then they can be licenced once again without fuss.
What's needed, however, is the Minister to back that idea. And that's the real obstacle. Which is why a non-committal reply wasn't great, but definitely wasn't the worst thing that could happen either.

It wasn't me!

There is fairly widespread concern at the prospect of having to demonstrate some sort of onerous standard of good reason for wanting to reload, which is an issue that needs to be tackled. A mechanism such as that in the UK, which recognises that smokeless powder is not an explosive and which allows its purchase by anyone with a firearm cert would make the most sense, and a firearm cert would therefore automatically confer the right to handload ammunition. Frankly, to have a second step after licensing the firearm to receive permission to reload for it strikes me as an opportunity for it to be operated on the sort of haphazard basis that has plagued firearms licensing. If I can have the gun, I should be allowed reload for it, automatically, with no further legislative oversight. In fact, the easiest way to do that is to amend the firearms act to include primers and propellant in the details of what constitute component parts of ammunition. We're covered to have those as long as they conform to our certificate restrictions, so that would be perfect.

Sparks

You'd have to push for higher ammo limits though - if you can only have enough propellant for 100 rounds, you're not going to be able to buy that in sufficently small quantities to remain legal (like having a 100 round limit on an airgun licence when the pellets come in tins of 500).

And a "good reason" test could be okay, so long as it's answered fully by possession of a firearms cert. Mind you, this would all be a lot easier if the NARGC hadn't said that hunters have no interest in reloading. That's introduced the worry that you might be able to get reloading for target shooting but not for hunting (and I'd guess it's why the 2006 Act said that economic reasons wouldn't be sufficient good reason for a reloading licence (for those wondering, that bit of the act never came into force and was repealed by the '09 Act)).

It wasn't me!

That or amend the act to specify, in recognition of the fact that the individual components require a licence but do not in themselves constitute a round of ammunition, that only a completed round would go towards the ammunition limit. I mean, while you're amending it, tidying up details like that aren't a major issue. Having powder qualify as a component part by volume would be insane, as there's absolutely no way to say before purchasing and extensive testing how many loads a given amount of powder will allow. In addition, suppose I decide to change my load and reduce it, now I have, in the same volume of powder, the component parts for more rounds than I did in my previous theoretical load, and maybe I've got some of each loaded up, which powder charge do we use to decide whether I'm over or under the limit? No, that's unworkable. Provided "lawful authority/good reason" was covered by a FAC, then fine, but there should not be another step to reload, and yes, the NARGC statement was twaddle (Wonder how many of their members they consulted about that...) There's also the argument that ammunition limits are inherently useless, but that's another story...

Tackleberrywho

Sparks wrote: »

You'd have to push for higher ammo limits though - if you can only have enough propellant for 100 rounds, you're not going to be able to buy that in sufficently small quantities to remain legal (like having a 100 round limit on an airgun licence when the pellets come in tins of 500).

And a "good reason" test could be okay, so long as it's answered fully by possession of a firearms cert. Mind you, this would all be a lot easier if the NARGC hadn't said that hunters have no interest in reloading. That's introduced the worry that you might be able to get reloading for target shooting but not for hunting (and I'd guess it's why the 2006 Act said that economic reasons wouldn't be sufficient good reason for a reloading licence (for those wondering, that bit of the act never came into force and was repealed by the '09 Act)).

I have 500 round limits on .223 and .308, and could theroetically be using the same powder in both, so then could have enogh powder for 1000 rounds + 250 Pistol rounds

Carbon Footprint would be as good a reason as any. less wastage of brass!!

deeksofdoom

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Carbon Footprint would be as good a reason as any. less wastage of brass!!

Pity the Greens are gone, I could see them going for that alright :eek::D:D:D

newby.204

It wasn't me! wrote: »

There is fairly widespread concern at the prospect of having to demonstrate some sort of onerous standard of good reason for wanting to reload, which is an issue that needs to be tackled. A mechanism such as that in the UK, which recognises that smokeless powder is not an explosive and which allows its purchase by anyone with a firearm cert would make the most sense, and a firearm cert would therefore automatically confer the right to handload ammunition. Frankly, to have a second step after licensing the firearm to receive permission to reload for it strikes me as an opportunity for it to be operated on the sort of haphazard basis that has plagued firearms licensing. If I can have the gun, I should be allowed reload for it, automatically, with no further legislative oversight. In fact, the easiest way to do that is to amend the firearms act to include primers and propellant in the details of what constitute component parts of ammunition. We're covered to have those as long as they conform to our certificate restrictions, so that would be perfect.

You see this statement, and i agree with it, is realistically what i think wont happen. Considering the acrobatics some of us have to perform to get licences, I can see AGS/DOJ pushing for a reloading licence instead of just amending the current licence to include a section for reloading same as moderators. Which, of course, will incur more fees upon shooters(all shooters) and make it a pain in the arse to reload. And you'll probably have to justify why you want to reload, when off the top of my head accuracy, economies of scale and for the sheer pleasure (which of course couldn't possibly be a valid reason) of it as a hobby.

Mr.Flibble

Sparks wrote: »

Like I said, non-committal. It's a case of "we're not in the door long enough to change the letterhead, so we're not going to commit to legislative policy for a minority interest today, especially not one we're involved in test cases in the High Court with at the moment, thanks very much". But that's not the same as the "I was the president of ICABS and I hate guns so I'll be banning them next week you baby-animal-murdering sociopath" either, which is what a few people were worried we'd be getting.

I'm not panicing just yet. Non-committal answers this early mean he's not coming to the table with any specific firearms policy in mind, and there is some party support for us in there. I just think we're more likely to see small pragmatic steps than one big dramatic sexy step. Unfortunately, as a community, we have a history of not even trying the small steps - in fact, of decrying them using language normally reserved for the laziest writers on straight-to-video B-movies - and pushing for that one big step that'll fix everything (despite it not actually being possible to do under the Irish legislative process). Whether we choose idealism or pragmatism over the next few months is probably going to affect how these things go for the next two or three years at least.

Mmmm. I think you may be being slightly optimistic. My reading of his letter would be:

"Guns are nasty things that should be banned.

We've wasted enough time and money on this already.

We might look at closing out whatever bits the last lot started but didn't finish.

Anything new or extra - forget it.

The Commissioner will back me up on this."

Mr.Flibble

newby.204 wrote: »

You see this statement, and i agree with it, is realistically what i think wont happen. Considering the acrobatics some of us have to perform to get licences, I can see AGS/DOJ pushing for a reloading licence instead of just amending the current licence to include a section for reloading same as moderators. Which, of course, will incur more fees upon shooters(all shooters) and make it a pain in the arse to reload. And you'll probably have to justify why you want to reload, when off the top of my head accuracy, economies of scale and for the sheer pleasure (which of course couldn't possibly be a valid reason) of it as a hobby.

Yes, and you'll have to reload in a radiation-proof bunker, wearing anti-static kaks & a reflective helmet.

There's more than one way to skin a cat.

Grizzly 45

More like from the Minister;
" Oh Whiskey Tango Foxtrot is this now???...I've only got to deal with normal criminal legislation,the Army and the Gaurds are bawling at me about paycuts and loss of manpower.I've got splinter groups of extreme republican headcases planning at taking a pot shot at the Queen of England and Trottie student types protesting at the US president.Not to mind if anything goes further pearshaped in this bankrupt country about having to possibly order said Gaurds and Army out against the Irish pouplation to deal with "robust protests",about lack of dole money.
And these guys want to reload ammo...FFS...Put it in the big "Pending Ministerial decision when I possibly have a nanosecond to look at it "tray."
As for it being allowed..Proably with more Health&Saftey issues,paperwork,money and a healthy dose of male cattle excrement attached that only the hard core and wealthy will be able to do it knowing this place.
But getting bach to the OP.Supposedly the pending HC cases are going to be dealt with in Autumn 2011

jett

When I was in the Uk we nearly all reloaded. No safety issue, no security issue, no problem.
It is not a lot cheaper to reload but it does allow you to tailor make your ammunition.
Its safe because no one wants to blow themselves up.
It adds another dimension to the sport.
As for security there is are many better ways of setting a device off than a silly little primer!